The corporate legal process outsourcing business model
With LPO, legal departments can achieve a dramatic cost savings without sacrificing quality.
September 21, 2011 at 07:35 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This story is the first part in a four-part series. The second installment will discuss the evolution of LPO.
As consumers continue to push pricing down and corporations fight for their survival, growing legal costs have come to center stage. In an effort to contain these costs, an increasing number of companies are beginning to explore legal process outsourcing (LPO) as a possible solution.
For instance, a company may ask its procurement teams to identify LPO providers to perform transactional legal work so that the in-house legal department can focus on more specialized activities. Or the legal department itself may turn to an LPO provider instead of more expensive outside counsel for certain legal tasks.
To adopt an effective LPO strategy, corporate legal departments should first understand the new business model the LPO market is promoting (see Figure 2). In the LPO business model, outside counsel is used only for legal tasks requiring the most significant level of specialized legal knowledge and experience (e.g., legal opinions).
Less-specialized work that requires a moderate level of legal knowledge and experience (e.g., contract review) is pushed down to in-house legal resources, some of whom may be organized under a shared services model to deliver services required by multiple business units.
Finally, repeatable legal tasks requiring relatively little specialized knowledge and experience are sourced to LPO providers. Examples of such tasks include routine and/or transactional activities such as e-discovery, legal secretarial/billing services, patent services, legal research, and contract management (see Figure 3).
Effective use of this new business model can give companies the opportunity to realize cost savings as more work moves to lower-cost providers, with LPO providers providing significant savings over the use of outside counsel.
In addition, by using the business model to more precisely define what work to delegate to outside counsel, a company can position itself to further reduce costs by consolidating the number of outside legal vendors and negotiating new and innovative procurement and sourcing deals with outside counsel based on the company's redefined legal needs.
In summary, by utilizing LPO for appropriate legal tasks, a corporate legal department may be able to:
- Reduce the size of its internal group
- Reallocate high-level resources to more complex tasks
- Absorb some of the work typically performed by outside counsel
- Access subject-matter specialists in specific legal service areas (such as e-discovery) in which the company lacks an in-house capability
- Facilitate a 24/7 (“follow the sun”) work model by utilizing onshore and offshore resources
- Benefit from preferential pricing due to the evolving legal outsourcing market
- Monitor and maintain performance by enforcing SLAs based on measurable criteria
- Reassess its current sourcing and procurement initiatives with outside law firms
- Develop a shared services approach to in-house legal functions
The potential bottom-line benefit is that corporate legal departments will have the ability to carry out necessary legal activities at a lower cost without sacrificing quality.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
- 2Red Tape, Talent Wars & Pricey Office Space Greet Firms Entering Saudi Arabia
- 3A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Becoming Clerk of the Forum
- 4Pa. Supreme Court Taps New Philadelphia Family Division Administrative Judge
- 55th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250